On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 02:29:30 -0500
Marsh Ray ma...@extendedsubset.com wrote:
If you're looking for someplace to feel subversive around, this isn't
it. Crypto is a mainstream engineering discipline these days, and one
greatly needed by modern civilization.
Unfortunately, there is still a
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Benjamin Kreuter brk...@virginia.edu wrote:
...
The law has definitely improved over what cryptographers faced in the
90s, but the attitudes have not. The US government still wants a
system where encrypted communications can be arbitrarily decrypted,
they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 25, 2012, at 1:22 PM, coderman wrote:
now they pay to side step crypto entirely:
iOS up to $250,000
Chrome or IE up to $200,000
Firefox or Safari up to $150,000
Windows up to $120,000
MS Word up to $100,000
Flash or Java up to
On Mar 25, 2012, at 10:43 PM, Jon Callas wrote:
On Mar 25, 2012, at 1:22 PM, coderman wrote:
now they pay to side step crypto entirely:
iOS up to $250,000
Chrome or IE up to $200,000
Firefox or Safari up to $150,000
Windows up to $120,000
MS Word up to $100,000
Flash or Java up to
ianG writes:
On 26/03/12 07:43 AM, Jon Callas wrote:
This is precisely the point I've made: the budget way to break crypto is to
buy a zero-day. And if you're going to build a huge computer center, you'd
be better off building fuzzers than key crackers.
point of understanding - what do
On 03/24/2012 01:28 AM, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Ah... Probably not. Think Jim Bell et al. I suspect it is far more
likely that the vast majority of subscribers here are listed in the
Potentially Dangerous category, if not the flat out Budding Terrorist
label.
Oh good grief. Do you even
On Mar 24, 2012 3:29 AM, Marsh Ray ma...@extendedsubset.com wrote:
On 03/24/2012 01:28 AM, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Ah... Probably not. Think Jim Bell et al. I suspect it is far more
likely that the vast majority of subscribers here are listed in the
Potentially Dangerous category, if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Let's think this through a bit. Assuming no stupendous breakthrough,
breaking encrypted messages will always take a significant amount of
time (and depending on the amount of stuff you have to deal with, 1
or 2 seconds might be significant!).
So I
From: Jeffrey I. Schiller j...@qyv.net
I bet everyone on this list can send encrypted messages to each other
and they will never be broken... because they probably already know
who we all are and (at least I hope) have put us all in the mostly
harmless bucket.
The people who missed the breakup
On 19/03/12 12:31 PM, ianG wrote:
... So after a lot of colour, it is not clear if they can break AES.
Yet. OK. But that is their plan. And they think they can do it, within
their foreseeable future.
So, step into NSA's shoes. If there is a timeline here we (NSA) worked
out we can break
On 03/21/2012 08:54 PM, ianG wrote:
Or, is the advantage that CBC and other modes have - obfuscation of the
ciphertext with variation stolen from the plaintext - of such low value
in the scheme of things that these things make no difference?
Just thinking out loud here.
CBC certainly seems
On 03/19/2012 07:15 PM, ianG wrote:
Right, so thinking about it some more, traffic analysis is the goal. But
AES-cracking is the cover-plan.
We're almost there, the new computer being built this year will make a
huge difference, a real breakthrough!
Perfect.
(They have a mandate for the
(yay, Bamford is back from the dead)
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)
By James Bamford March 15, 2012 | 7:24 pm | Categories: Crypto,
Cybersecurity, Miscellaneous, NSA, Paranoia,
On 17/03/12 00:35 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
(yay, Bamford is back from the dead)
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
the interesting claim:
the NSA made an enormous
breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break,
unfathomably complex
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012, Randall Webmail wrote:
I suppose we've all seen the proofs that brute-forcing PGP would
take a supercomputer the size of the planet longer than the age of
the universe to accomplish. Was the math faulty in those proofs,
or is it true, and the NSA is just empire-building?
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Randall Webmail rv...@insightbb.com wrote:
I suppose we've all seen the proofs that brute-forcing PGP would take a
supercomputer
the size of the planet longer than the age of the universe to accomplish. Was
the math
faulty in those proofs, or is it true,
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Jonathan Thornburg
jth...@astro.indiana.edu wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012, Randall Webmail wrote:
I suppose we've all seen the proofs that brute-forcing PGP would
take a supercomputer the size of the planet longer than the age of
the universe to accomplish. Was
17 matches
Mail list logo
